RP Listener Forum

RAFT  »   Climate Change
Post to this Topic
RichardPrins
Jul 9, 2015 - 10:15am


via
 
RichardPrins
Jul 3, 2015 - 4:14pm


 
RichardPrins
Jun 29, 2015 - 3:03pm


 
RichardPrins
Jun 4, 2015 - 12:39pm

Research downplaying impending global warming is overturned
A new study finds Monckton et al. (2015) riddled with errors

A new paper just published in Science Bulletin by Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana Nuccitelli, Ken Rice, and John Abraham shows that mainstream climate models simulate global temperature observations much better than the “irreducibly simple climate model” of Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and William Briggs.

When the Monckton paper was published in the Chinese journal Science Bulletin this January, it was covered by conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail, Breitbart and World Net Daily, which used it to manufacture doubt about the dangers associated with human-caused global warming. The ideologically-appealing but scientifically incorrect message from the paper was essentially, ‘climate models are running hot, the climate is insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect, and thus future global warming will be minimal and nothing to worry about.’

However, our team identified numerous glaring fundamental errors in the Monckton paper. The first was in the very premise of the paper itself, claiming that global climate models are “running hot.” In reality, as I show in my book Climatology versus Pseudoscience, mainstream climate models have done a good job at projecting the observed changes in the global surface temperature.

While temperature measurements have been toward the lower of the range of model projections in recent years, there’s been a tremendous body of scientific research investigating the various contributors to the slowdown in global surface warming. This research, which was entirely ignored by Monckton and his colleagues, is summarized by Kevin Cowtan in week 5 of the Denial101x course.

In fact, ignoring a vast body of important relevant research was a recurring theme throughout the Monckton paper. After they manufactured a problem by exaggerating the discrepancy between mainstream climate model simulations and temperature observations, and ignored the relevant scientific research on that issue, Monckton and colleagues created their own “irreducibly simple climate model” with built-in assumptions based on circuit design rather than the physics of the Earth’s climate system.

Here they made two fundamental mistakes. First, they assumed that the Earth’s climate is very stable, and built that assumption into their model. This assumption was based ignoring most of the body of paleoclimate (historical climate change) research showing big past climate change swings influenced by amplifying feedbacks, and by assuming that the Earth’s climate will behave the same as a human-designed electrical circuit with minimal gain and feedbacks.

Second, based on that first assumption of a stable climate, their paper claimed “warming is already at equilibrium” and the Earth’s response to an energy imbalance is instantaneous. However, this is obviously wrong because satellites measure a large ongoing global energy imbalance, with a tremendous amount of heat building up in the oceans. As John Abraham explains,

The model of Monckton and his colleagues is fatally flawed in that it assumes the Earth responds instantly to changes in heat. We know this isn’t true. The Earth has what’s called thermal inertia. Just like it takes a while for a pot of water to boil, or a Thanksgiving turkey to heat up, the Earth takes a while to absorb heat. If you ignore that, you will be way off in your results.

Circular logic was another fundamental flaw in the Monckton et al. paper – they used their simple model, which assumed that the Earth’s climate is stable and hence insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect, to demonstrate that the climate is insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect. (...)


 
marko86  (North TX)
May 29, 2015 - 9:08am

It 90 degrees in Alaska last week. Wow.
 
kurtster
May 27, 2015 - 1:19pm

 islander wrote:

Well, you asked for my opinion specifically. 

 
If that is what it includes, then I am fully forewarned and can complain no longer.

...

Have a nice day ... 


 
RichardPrins
May 27, 2015 - 12:40pm

 kurtster wrote:
(...)  It is a denial of choice because of a gov. mandate.  (...)  This is interference in the free market place. 

Like subsidies, bribes donations, or slavery abolition/child labour legislation.
 
islander  (Seattle)
May 27, 2015 - 12:32pm

 kurtster wrote:

Totally unrelated, imo.  This is just the way of the tech world / free market place.  It's just the new way of things.

The ceiling fan issue is not.  It is a denial of choice because of a gov. mandate.  The same one that has banned the incandescent light bulb.  This is interference in the free market place.

Someday might you be able to reply without including a personal attack ?
 
Well, you asked for my opinion specifically. 


 
kurtster
May 27, 2015 - 12:07pm

 islander wrote:

No, just a guy who will go out of his way to be outraged. How about returning the fan with the style of light you dislike?  They might even have a few more of the ones you really do want. or if your fans have to match perfectly then buy two others that have the style you prefer.  This isn't Obama coming after you, or trying to poison you with mercury. It's just the new way of things.

On a related note, my old Motorola phone died. It was the perfect size. All the new phones are too big to comfortably fit in my pocket. So now I'm forced to either use an older iPhone, a low end phone, or a giant phone. Because of a group of techie thinkers the choices I want are no longer available. I was outraged for brief bit, but then I realized I looked like the old guy lamenting the days when an operator would connect your call, or you had to actually talk to a teller at the bank. I got a new bigger phone and everything has been just fine. But what do I know, I'm probably being brainwashed by the .gov signal generator implanted in the damn thing. 

 
Totally unrelated, imo.  This is just the way of the tech world / free market place.  It's just the new way of things.

The ceiling fan issue is not.  It is a denial of choice because of a gov. mandate.  The same one that has banned the incandescent light bulb.  This is interference in the free market place.

Someday might you be able to reply without including a personal attack ?

 
RichardPrins
May 27, 2015 - 12:00pm

 islander wrote:
(...) But what do I know, I'm probably being brainwashed by the .gov signal generator implanted in the damn thing.
 
It's the chemtrails, stoopid.
 
islander  (Seattle)
May 27, 2015 - 11:56am

 kurtster wrote:
I'll toss out an example of where I have a big problem with this Climate Change BS and how government mandated changes are bad.

My ceiling fans.  I bought two for the new place.  Same model, just different manufacturing dates.  One of them had conventional sockets for the lights but the newer one had special sockets that requires the use of special CFL bulbs.  What's bad about the latter you might ask ?  Well I am dead set against using CFL's at any level.  I went straight to LED's, even paying exorbitant prices to get them in the beginning because I believed they will be the better way in the long term and still do.  

But because of the group greenie think, I am denied the ability of using my free will to use what I believe is the best choice, LED's in this fan because the government does not trust me or anyone else to make the right decision.  That pisses me off.  I am forced to use a bulb that has hazmat instructions for its disposal.  That pisses me off, too.

You climate changers don't trust anyone to think correctly, differently or freely.  That pisses me off. 
What say you Islander, does this make me an asshat, too ?

 
No, just a guy who will go out of his way to be outraged. How about returning the fan with the style of light you dislike?  They might even have a few more of the ones you really do want. or if your fans have to match perfectly then buy two others that have the style you prefer.  This isn't Obama coming after you, or trying to poison you with mercury. It's just the new way of things.

On a related note, my old Motorola phone died. It was the perfect size. All the new phones are too big to comfortably fit in my pocket. So now I'm forced to either use an older iPhone, a low end phone, or a giant phone. Because of a group of techie thinkers the choices I want are no longer available. I was outraged for brief bit, but then I realized I looked like the old guy lamenting the days when an operator would connect your call, or you had to actually talk to a teller at the bank. I got a new bigger phone and everything has been just fine. But what do I know, I'm probably being brainwashed by the .gov signal generator implanted in the damn thing. 
 
kurtster
May 27, 2015 - 11:37am

I'll toss out an example of where I have a big problem with this Climate Change BS and how government mandated changes are bad.

My ceiling fans.  I bought two for the new place.  Same model, just different manufacturing dates.  One of them had conventional sockets for the lights but the newer one had special sockets that requires the use of special CFL bulbs.  What's bad about the latter you might ask ?  Well I am dead set against using CFL's at any level.  I went straight to LED's, even paying exorbitant prices to get them in the beginning because I believed they will be the better way in the long term and still do.  

But because of the group greenie think, I am denied the ability of using my free will to use what I believe is the best choice, LED's in this fan because the government does not trust me or anyone else to make the right decision.  That pisses me off.  I am forced to use a bulb that has hazmat instructions for its disposal.  That pisses me off, too.

You climate changers don't trust anyone to think correctly, differently or freely.  That pisses me off. 
What say you Islander, does this make me an asshat, too ?
 
kurtster
May 27, 2015 - 11:07am

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Ah yes, its the republicans fault as usual ...

But ... from your article ...

What they found was the presence of echo chambers on both sides of the climate change debate — that influencers from both camps were surrounding themselves primarily with scientific information that reinforced their policy beliefs. But they also found that the echo chambers from the anti-emissions reductions camp used far fewer scientific sources to back up their opinions. So, the climate denier echo chamber sort of mimicked a situation where 20 people screamed one person’s scientific opinion so loudly that it seemed like 20 different scientific opinions. In the climate consensus echo chamber, there actually were 20 opinions.

At least the article admits that there is some real dissenting peer reviewed science on the matter.  That is groundbreaking news in itself.  But the article uses a false analogy that the quantity of science trumps the quality of science.  And there is that repeated intolerant term, deniers.

Carry on ... 
 
 
RichardPrins
May 7, 2015 - 11:16am

Record global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million in March 2015
"It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally," said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. "We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone.

"This marks the fact that humans burning fossil fuels have caused global carbon dioxide concentrations to rise more than 120 parts per million since pre-industrial times," added Tans. "Half of that rise has occurred since 1980." (...)

 
RichardPrins
Apr 22, 2015 - 8:21am

University offering free online course to demolish climate denial
The University of Queensland’s course examines the science of climate science denial

 
 
RichardPrins
Apr 1, 2015 - 2:10pm


 
RichardPrins
Mar 28, 2015 - 9:52pm

Antarctica may have experienced its warmest day ever recorded on Tuesday, with the temperature reading of 63.5°F, reports The Weather Underground.

Tuesday's record high temperature follows another high reading of 63.3°F set just the day before. Until this week's heat wave, the highest-known recorded temperature on the continent was 62.6°F back in 1976.

The Antarctic Peninsula where the readings were made "is one of the fastest warming spots on Earth," reports The Weather Undergound. The website cites studies from 2012 that show the world is warming at a quickening pace.

Five nations and territories have tied or hit all-time high temperature records so far this year.


 
ScottFromWyoming  (Powell)
Mar 26, 2015 - 7:57am

 Red_Dragon wrote:

The hell you say.

 

 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69  Next